Honestly, I learn that Caucasian's graciousness charms, pulling together a diversity society we have now - that's why Chinese Americans gotta be here - be grateful for that. I can't, however, see such charming in Trump - only calling himself as "supermodel" "smart" "big manhood" - all of that being said about himself - always self-centered -
, while belittle all others.
Caucasian's graciousness? Not in him at all. Although, superficially, he said "I love Chinese Americans", when facing that group of Chinese Americans with T-shirt and sign of "I love Trump." I've looked for his Know-How to love Chinese Americans, specific fabric to love, such as having Chinese Americans in his circle of decision-making (cabinet members like Steven Chu, Elaine Chow), supreme judges, etc. - never heard - tell me if I'm wrong.
graciousness gotta derive from within. It's a troubling world - how can you be grounded with "Make American White Again" with diversity?
Without Know-How, you can't get majority of voters on board for you - Trump is a sloganneer, making outragous slogans, superficial, never offer any Know-How fabric - you can fool some, but can't fool those educated voters, including majority of white voters, those with solid sense of "equal justice under law" - that's what Caucasian's graciousness bases on. Nobody can't win without white folks backing on.
Without Know-How in place now, presidency flys you by before you warm up your seat. Solid sense of "equal justice under law" demands for a solid policy for all the voters - you can't get away with your sloganeering. Let voters shop for your Know-How.
So frustrating to see this sloan this morning - "Make America White Again" (below).
My confiction was: All whites? How so? Historically, all whites fought against each other like hell, so they wanted non-whites to shift and balance out their own problems. Blaming immigrants has been a scapegoat - making non-whites nervous - Trump got this nerve to please those whites. You know what?
"Make America White Again" = "Make America great Again" - that guy reads Trump !
That equation fits well with all Trump sayings: Only Trump-like Whites are Americans, not even that Mexican white judge, "Curiel" in Trump's eye only "That Mexican" - even ABM, not a chance for your ABCs. Don't even think, if you're ABCs - "back to ..." in his word, not yet said but implied. Not in his play book.
(I gonna clarify that, some claim read my mind - anti-Trump - No, you don't read me - I'm just shopping around for "What's in it for me?" You can't offer yours for me, as it's still yours. I work hard to get my voting right - gotta make good use of it. Laugh if you will, but only your laugh. Free to speak, but you gotta gravitize on issues only. ( English translation of gravitize: seriousness and importance of manner, causing feelings of respect and trust in others.) - I don't respond to any sloganeering attacks.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump's political rise, I've also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection.
Calling him a troll trivializes his repulsive comments. Trump is a lot of terrible things: xenophobic, self-aggrandizing, a thin-skinnedbigot. Since announcing his presidential campaign in June 2015, the reptilian nature of Trump’s beliefs hasn’t been his main headline, however. Instead, journalists have often framed Trump as a troll, perhaps the greatest troll in American history. Articles published by Salon, the New York Post, the Daily Dot, the Daily Beast, Vox, FiveThirtyEight, the Daily Mail, the Washington Post, GQ, and Politico have explicitly framed Trump’s behaviors as “trolling” in the headline or lede. Many other articles, like those published by Gawker, Jezebel, Time, and even far-right shouting arenas like Breitbart casually employ the adjective trolling when describing Trump. (And yes, Slate has done it, too.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump’s political rise, I’ve also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection. Journalists from Time, the New York Post, and the New York Times, among others, have all asked variations of the same basic question: Was Donald Trump the ultimate troll, or what?
Advertisement
I understand this impulse. Trump’s presidential announcement, for example, certainly looked like an awful lot like trolling, which is broadly defined as the attempt to provoke a strong negative reaction in one’s audience. It was just so needlessly belligerent, so out there, so offensive—like a walking, talking internet comments section. In his rambling speech, Trump described Mexicans as criminals and rapists. (“And some, I assume, are good people,” he halfheartedly conceded, suggesting that if there are any good Mexicans out there, Donald J. Trump hasn’t personally encountered any.) He promised to build a wall on the Mexican border (“nobody builds walls better than me”), and through the strength of his leadership, to Make America Great Again™ (line courtesy of Ronald Reagan). But Trump wasn’t focused solely on nativist fearmongering. He also emphasized how wonderful and rich and well-connected he was (“I think I’m actually a very nice person”; “I’ve done an amazing job”; “I have so many websites”). He even managed to plug his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal.
It was easy to dismiss Trump back then, on the left and mainstream right. There was no way he’d win the nomination. As a result, for many, Trump was funny. And for those in the news media, great for business. Because again, it was all so outrageous. A trainwreck. Why Twitter was invented. Insert Michael Jackson popcorn gif.
Thus it went for the next 12 months. When he wasn’t tweeting monosyllabic insults or defending the size of his penis on live television, Trump was engaging in the kind of speech and behavior—toward Mexicans, black people, Muslims, and women—that wasn’t just unpresidential, wasn’t just offensive, but was masterfully tailored for the click-based web economy. It was too absurd and too cynical to be real. He had to be trolling. Right?
An independent candidate for Congress from Tennessee has been swept up in a wave of criticism for his campaign billboard vowing to "Make American White Again.
總括而言，川普初選所走的煽動白人策略，已徹底曝露，他所謂的「讓美國再強大」，其實就是「讓美國再次變白」(Make America White Again)。田納西州一名模倣川普的參選人，日前正式打出「讓美國再次變白」的競選口號。他說，1960年代時，他的選區85%都是白人，還沒有大量移民，晚上不用關門，不用擔心入屋竊盜，不用擔心被人劫車，不用擔心清真寺會教壞小孩。他的意思是，要時光倒流，讓美國回到白人控製一切的時代。但這可能嗎？美國是一個移民國家，這種赤祼祼反種族的言論，就算成功煽動白人，對移民和少數族裔卻沒有一點吸引力。
TJKCB 發表評論於
您的位置： 文學城 ? 新聞 ? 焦點新聞 ? 川普這些政治主張 簡直就是美國版的“脫歐”(圖)
川普這些政治主張 簡直就是美國版的“脫歐”(圖)
文章來源: BBC 於 2016-07-01 15:09:06 - 新聞取自各大新聞媒體，新聞內容並不代表本網立場！
移民是資產或負債？移民利用美國的教育、醫療和政府福利等資源，研究顯示，新移民享用政府福利比率確實高於本土美國人。但總體上，新移民也提高勞動力素質，對經濟和創新貢獻比原生美國人更優秀。智庫National Foundation for American Policy今年初統計，全美87家資本逾10億美元的新創公司，44家(占51%)是移民創辦；加州矽穀1995年至2005年，新公司創辦人52.4%來自國外；矽穀每十家企業有四家由移民創設。沒有移民，美國難有今天的強大。
你把自己當美國人，美國人根本就沒把你當人。
rty 發表評論於 2016-06-23 18:21:26
Now can we sue university if its advertisement still has words like equal opportunity? The government should force school now to add racial discriminated institution. But of course it won't do that because it then could not claim moral high ground.
邵誌尚 發表評論於 2016-06-23 17:58:59
這簡直是赤裸裸的種族歧視，
一貫裝x的民主黨及其愛打砸搶燒的暴民沒有行動？
哦，原來是對你們有利，
是吧。
月光光買手表 發表評論於 2016-06-23 17:47:40
中國盛產考試精英們，這是正確的裁定
zing20 發表評論於 2016-06-23 17:45:56
絕對的公平是不可能的。全按考試分數來錄取也不是很公平，和諧社會必須照顧弱勢群體和族群。
平權行動(affirmative action)怎麽會對亞裔特別不利呢？憑資格錄取，Abigail Fisher也是沒有機會，她的case在於她應該被錄取，原因是她是白人。
helix22 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:22:38
youngsteryz 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:16:08
亞裔不滿最高法院裁定，是不是以為他們可以緊跟白人Abigail Fisher之後，always second in line？
____________________
什麽腦筋，就沒想過第一，不跟人後麵？ 當然我支持的是憑資格錄取，和你這種死腦筋是不搭界的。
youngsteryz 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:20:36
When Fisher applied in 2008, she failed to meet the cutoff for automatic admission into the school, which was offered only to the top 10 percent the graduating class that year. Fisher had a 3.59 GPA and a 1180 out of 1600 on her SAT. Since she missed that top mark, she had to compete for 841 additional spots that were reserved for students who weren't in the top tier.
It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
Neither Fisher nor Blum (her lawyer) mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher... 查看完整評論
錦西 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:19:24
美國的大學教育的前瞻性非常強。教書，育人的教學理念，校園環境，師資水平都是世界一流。他們有權裁定他們的教育方針以及錄取方式。
WSLama 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:17:13
嗬嗬， 法製，平等，不歧視出生種族。。。
·八戒· 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:17:04
哈哈，看看是“民主”還是幾個老頭子“主”？
youngsteryz 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:16:08
亞裔不滿最高法院裁定，是不是以為他們可以緊跟白人Abigail Fisher之後，always second in line？
youngsteryz 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:07:37
Fisher’s case before the Supreme Court, in which she demanded that she be admitted to the University of Texas at Austin despite not having the grades to get in, confirmed every liberal suspicion about the opposition to affirmative action, namely that it’s not about “equality” at all, but about making sure white people are always first in line, ahead of all people of color, for job and education opportunities.
悠悠南風 發表評論於 2016-06-23 14:00:22
北美慶豐 發表評論於 2016-06-23 10:36:55
川普要make America white again、選川普不是找死嗎。
＝＝＝＝＝＝＝
Make America Mexico/Muslim／black／transgender 而就不是找死呀. 看來你是其中之一吧
看得清 發表評論於 2016-06-23 13:43:53
那些川黑還有什麽話說，你還支持左棍?還支持老巫婆？那你真的吃錯藥了。
yikedashu 發表評論於 2016-06-23 12:57:40
以後華人、白人後代可能會以嫁娶黑墨為主流婚嫁選擇。如此混來混去，三代後大家都一個顏色了，就好了，啥種族歧視都不存在了。
overit 發表評論於 2016-06-23 12:56:55
Bluebluesky123 發表評論於 2016-06-23 10:14:07
Honestly, I learn that Caucasian's graciousness charms, pulling together a diversity society we have now - that's why Chinese Americans gotta be here - be grateful for that. I can't, however, see such charming in Trump - only calling himself as "supermodel" "smart" "big manhood" - all of that being said about himself - always self-centered -
, while belittle all others.
Caucasian's graciousness? Not in him at all. Although, superficially, he said "I love Chinese Americans", when facing that group of Chinese Americans with T-shirt and sign of "I love Trump." I've looked for his Know-How to love Chinese Americans, specific fabric to love, such as having Chinese Americans in his circle of decision-making (cabinet members like Steven Chu, Elaine Chow), supreme judges, etc. - never heard - tell me if I'm wrong.
graciousness gotta derive from within. It's a troubling world - how can you be grounded with "Make American White Again" with diversity?
Without Know-How, you can't get majority of voters on board for you - Trump is a sloganneer, making outragous slogans, superficial, never offer any Know-How fabric - you can fool some, but can't fool those educated voters, including majority of white voters, those with solid sense of "equal justice under law" - that's what Caucasian's graciousness bases on. Nobody can't win without white folks backing on.
Without Know-How in place now, presidency flys you by before you warm up your seat. Solid sense of "equal justice under law" demands for a solid policy for all the voters - you can't get away with your sloganeering. Let voters shop for your Know-How.
So frustrating to see this sloan this morning - "Make America White Again" (below).
My confiction was: All whites? How so? Historically, all whites fought against each other like hell, so they wanted non-whites to shift and balance out their own problems. Blaming immigrants has been a scapegoat - making non-whites nervous - Trump got this nerve to please those whites. You know what?
"Make America White Again" = "Make America great Again" - that guy reads Trump !
That equation fits well with all Trump sayings: Only Trump-like Whites are Americans, not even that Mexican white judge, "Curiel" in Trump's eye only "That Mexican" - even ABM, not a chance for your ABCs. Don't even think, if you're ABCs - "back to ..." in his word, not yet said but implied. Not in his play book.
(I gonna clarify that, some claim read my mind - anti-Trump - No, you don't read me - I'm just shopping around for "What's in it for me?" You can't offer yours for me, as it's still yours. I work hard to get my voting right - gotta make good use of it. Laugh if you will, but only your laugh. Free to speak, but you gotta gravitize on issues only. ( English translation of gravitize: seriousness and importance of manner, causing feelings of respect and trust in others.) - I don't respond to any sloganeering attacks.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump's political rise, I've also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection.
Calling him a troll trivializes his repulsive comments. Trump is a lot of terrible things: xenophobic, self-aggrandizing, a thin-skinnedbigot. Since announcing his presidential campaign in June 2015, the reptilian nature of Trump’s beliefs hasn’t been his main headline, however. Instead, journalists have often framed Trump as a troll, perhaps the greatest troll in American history. Articles published by Salon, the New York Post, the Daily Dot, the Daily Beast, Vox, FiveThirtyEight, the Daily Mail, the Washington Post, GQ, and Politico have explicitly framed Trump’s behaviors as “trolling” in the headline or lede. Many other articles, like those published by Gawker, Jezebel, Time, and even far-right shouting arenas like Breitbart casually employ the adjective trolling when describing Trump. (And yes, Slate has done it, too.)
As the 2015 publication of my book on trolls more or less coincided with Trump’s political rise, I’ve also fielded a number of interview requests on the apparent trolling connection. Journalists from Time, the New York Post, and the New York Times, among others, have all asked variations of the same basic question: Was Donald Trump the ultimate troll, or what?
Advertisement
I understand this impulse. Trump’s presidential announcement, for example, certainly looked like an awful lot like trolling, which is broadly defined as the attempt to provoke a strong negative reaction in one’s audience. It was just so needlessly belligerent, so out there, so offensive—like a walking, talking internet comments section. In his rambling speech, Trump described Mexicans as criminals and rapists. (“And some, I assume, are good people,” he halfheartedly conceded, suggesting that if there are any good Mexicans out there, Donald J. Trump hasn’t personally encountered any.) He promised to build a wall on the Mexican border (“nobody builds walls better than me”), and through the strength of his leadership, to Make America Great Again™ (line courtesy of Ronald Reagan). But Trump wasn’t focused solely on nativist fearmongering. He also emphasized how wonderful and rich and well-connected he was (“I think I’m actually a very nice person”; “I’ve done an amazing job”; “I have so many websites”). He even managed to plug his 1987 book, The Art of the Deal.
It was easy to dismiss Trump back then, on the left and mainstream right. There was no way he’d win the nomination. As a result, for many, Trump was funny. And for those in the news media, great for business. Because again, it was all so outrageous. A trainwreck. Why Twitter was invented. Insert Michael Jackson popcorn gif.
Thus it went for the next 12 months. When he wasn’t tweeting monosyllabic insults or defending the size of his penis on live television, Trump was engaging in the kind of speech and behavior—toward Mexicans, black people, Muslims, and women—that wasn’t just unpresidential, wasn’t just offensive, but was masterfully tailored for the click-based web economy. It was too absurd and too cynical to be real. He had to be trolling. Right?
An independent candidate for Congress from Tennessee has been swept up in a wave of criticism for his campaign billboard vowing to "Make American White Again.
